[MisterFreeze]

If YOU support a particular program, why can't YOU pay for it and leave everyone else alone?

I'm going to try and give you as straight an answer as possible.

I alone can't pay for mental health professionals for my county. I make a respectable living, but I simply can't afford to pay for the salaries and other expenses of those who help keep kids off the street, preventing crime, those who help women who have been raped, those who help keep dangerous people off the street. Unfortunately, I'm one of only a few people in my city who would likely be willing to help pay for mental health professionals, and there's no way we'd have enough money. The result would be disastrous. People don't know how many at-risk kids there are out there. People don't know how often women are the victims of domestic abuse or rape and require counseling services. People have no concept of what the county's mental health services do for us, collectively. And if the services were to be shut down tomorrow, there's simply no way a private incarnation could possibly function because despite the fact there's a problem, people are too selfish and short-sighted to understand that because this is a problem that affects all of us, it thus is fair for us all to share a tiny individual cost to prevent.

This exact same thing can be expanded to any one of hundreds if not thousands of services provided by government. The idea that somehow the market will magically solve problems that crop up is not simply demonstrably false, it's an assertion made in order to undermine equality and democracy in favor of corporate oligarchy. I'm guessing you've never lived under an oligarchical system, because if you had, you'd understand that by collectively sharing responsibility, we maintain an all-important balance of power between the strongest government and private powers, and the collective people.

If YOU don't believe a company should be in for profits, why don't YOU start your own non-profit and leave everyone else alone?

Can you rewrite this, please? What you're asking isn't just vague, I'm not even sure I understand the question. Are you saying that absolutely everything should be privatized?

If YOU don't believe a certain food is healthy, why don't YOU not eat it and leave everyone else alone?

I need you to explain to me, in detail, the process by which one tests food for e.coli. I'm willing to bet that, like 99.99999% of people, you lack that particular skill. I'm well educated in science and I don't know how to do it.

Other than to freeze it.

I have no problem with anyone supporting a cause, getting together with friends and associates, financing it, and working for it, but I do have a problem when you use other peoples' money to do it.

You just haven't realized yet just how much you owe collectivism. Without collectivism: no roads, no phones, no internet, no CDC, no workers rights, etc. The pooling of resources is the only way to tackle the truly massive social, economic and environmental challenges that we absolutely, 100% cannot deal with as individuals. Government is how we accomplish that which the market has repeatedly failed in, like clean air and water, safe workplaces and basic economic security.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

MisterFreeze:

You miss my entire point. I am not arguing against collective effort, pooling of resources, or co-operation. Rather, I am arguing that it is only moral when based upon the mutual, individual consent of those involved; people do and need to co-operate, but why must they do so with the threat of fines or imprisonment?

I argue for a society where individuals may determine, on their own, where their resources are pooled and where they contribute and co-operate. i.e, a bottom-up society rather than a top-down central authority.

Let me illustrate a point. Take, for example, gay marriage or drug use. Conservatives wish to ban these things because they feel that these things are morally repugnant; however, is that a genuinely good reason to ban? Not at all.

If conservatives don't like these things, they are free to refrain from engaging in them or interacting with the people who do engage in them. However, they should not be able to ban them for everybody.

Now take the positive case: some liberals believe in this or that program. Should they, however, force everybody to pay when they are well able to contribute individually and leave the others alone? Not at all. Those who wish to contribute may do so without forcing it upon others; and so to force it upon others becomes immoral.

I like the idea of positive non-intervention, as is the case in Hong Kong. The government establishes the foundations of a society, i.e, law enforcement, courts, infrastructure, but does not itself engage in organizing society.

[Headache]

This should be a question for non-Libertarians instead of Liberals. Even Conservatives are capable of introducing programs in which everyone has to pay for. So many more people could be involved in this conversation!

Anyways Capitalist_Eagle, the best thing to do is build a colony on the moon. The Earth is becoming overpopulated and tyrannical and God is angry at the planet as a whole. If you lived on the moon then you can start fresh and everyone could be communists and you would be happier. You would save a lot of money as well, because everyone would wear those silver uni-tard type outfits and it's always cheaper to manufacture stuff in bulk. Also, no one would be threatened with prison because there aren't prisons on the moon either. Problem solved.

[MisterFreeze]

MisterFreeze:

You miss my entire point. I am not arguing against collective effort, pooling of resources, or co-operation. Rather, I am arguing that it is only moral when based upon the mutual, individual consent of those involved; people do and need to co-operate, but why must they do so with the threat of fines or imprisonment?

Ah. As I see it, I can answer this question in two ways, practically and theoretically.

Practically, this is the agreement you make being a citizen. Being a citizen of the United States affords one a great deal of rights, privileges, services and opportunities. In exchange for these, it's required that you follow laws, which include paying taxes, or there are penalties. The fact that most people are born into this arrangement makes it no less of a mutually beneficial agreement. If you're unhappy with the terms of this agreement, you have the options of voting to change it or opting out and finding another country which better suits your needs and abilities. Very simple.

Theoretically, however, it needs to be framed a bit differently. What happens when three quarters of the country decides they want federal, state, and local government services for free and stops paying their taxes? What happens to the CDC? Do we just let outbreaks happen and let individual consent work out the details? What happens to hurricane warning systems? What happens to testing food and drugs for basic safety? Without law enforcement, what's to stop your neighbor from going that extra inch and slugging you in the nose? We already live in a country without the foresight to have something like single-payer healthcare, and not only are the ultimate costs on all of us much higher, but there's an organized attempt to deceive the public about those costs. What I'm asking, basically, is what would America look like in 2011 if we suddenly didn't require people, with the threat of fines and even imprisonment, to not pay for the civilization which they are a part of? Would you voluntarily pay for the CDC? How much would you pay to compensate for the likelihood that very few people would voluntarily pay for it?

[CounterChaos]

If YOU don't believe a certain food is healthy, why don't YOU not eat it and leave everyone else alone?

If I was to say to you that the capitalists that produce much of the food we eat, don't give a rats ass whether or not it is good for you and the only reason that you have semi-healthy food on your table at times is because of their fear of lawsuits...Would you believe me?

If I was to say to you that the capitalists that produce the food we eat are continually looking for ways to adulterate their processed food goop with additives to include hydrogenated oils, starches and other high fat and high carbohydrate garbage to increase the bulk and their profit...Would you believe me?

If I was to say to you that capitalists utilizing high paid lobbyists are constantly pressuring the Food and Drug Administration (which btw has a horrible record) and other government institutions, senators and congressmen to allow this practice...Would you believe me?

Do you really think those capitalists that produce and market those cheap chicken frank hot-dogs that have the texture and taste of a sponge eat them? THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT CRAP ON THEIR TABLE...I bet they have been on yours?

You just don't get it do you?...All they care about is profit...They eat the best that money can buy...The rest of us poor slobs are fed high carbohydrate-high fat garbage because that is all that many can afford, or because of the enormous amount of advertising revenue they put into promoting their garbage.

So you and those like you get all bent out of shape because we are pissed off at what they are doing and we want honesty and truth. Just because we're born into this nightmare they call capitalism, does not mean that we as human beings should forfeit our right to be fed healthy food required for the health of the human species. Actually, I think it should be guaranteed to us as a "Basic Human Right" Furthermore, these capitalist thugs should be prosecuted and forced to eat those very franks for a month!

Now don't go and get all "you can choose what to eat" on me...Yes, I can because I understand...There are 300 million people in America...Do they all understand what they are putting in their mouth?

You want proof?...Take one day and count how many obese people you see, including children. Take one trip to the market and look at how many products have hydrogenated oil of some kind shoved in there with the rest of the goop. While you're there at the market glance over and see what the majority are buying...I guarantee it will not be fresh fruits and vegetables, lean cuts of meat or complex carbohydrates in many forms. The real deal here is this...You do what you want to do..Eat what you want to eat...Me-I'm going to help as best I can those that can't make an educated choice...I hope this answers your question...Cheers

[CounterChaos]

If you're unhappy with the terms of this agreement, you have the options of voting to change it or opting out and finding another country which better suits your needs and abilities. Very simple.

MisterFreeze

So you are basically telling him "if you don't love it leave it?"...It is not very simple in my experience...Vote to change?..When was the last time if ever you "really" felt like your vote mattered for anything?..Be honest.

Leave the country?..I did...No, it is not that simple either...It is a complicated nightmare of paperwork, time, more paperwork..Oh did I mention money?..Lots of money if you plan to stay out for a long time...The terms of the agreement are not fair and favor an elitist class.....Peace